All Activity

Follow up: I bought a 10-32 Helicoil insertion tool off eBay. I put in some oil, and ran that tap in/out a couple of times. Degreased with some brake cleaner. Loaded a short (5 thread) Helicoil insert into the machine- zipped it right into place. Those insertion tools are the sizzle. Problem solved.

That's not terrible. That still makes this system a good deal IMO.

Not sure what else you are having done, but I got the gfc-500 with both pitch trim and YD and by the time everything was done, the change in aft CG was negligible, especially if you DON'T put 10lbs in the hat shelf area.

For my 1965 M20E, start checklist, you turn on the electric fuel pump, push mixture in for 5-7 seconds to get fuel in the lines/cylinder, turn it off, pull out mixture and then start...

Collet Chuck and a parting tool... I can hear that delrin singing now. It makes such a unique sound.

This will fly as well as a lead baloon Good luck with that.

I've never had a problem getting a Mooney stopped on any runway I've landed on. We're talking a couple of knots here. I fly jets too and the speed doesn't seem to scare me... Yeah, we're talking an inch or two at most. Might make all the difference or none at all. Like I said you do you. There are valid reasons for using TO flaps for landing. Not the least of which is it's what the POH says to do if the is a crosswind. Disregard the POH all you want. Or if your POH doesn't say that, good on you for not making things up as you go and just doing what you do.

Seriously though most airplanes have 1.4 pounds of dirt or dead insects in or on the back half of the airplane. It's not going to make any appreciable difference. Putting a small cooler strapped in the front seat would probably give you enough ballast if you were really concerned. But I wouldn't overthink it too much.

Tell her that since you're in the front you need to gain 5 pounds and since she's in the back she needs to lose 5 pounds. Everything should be fine . . lol. Let us know how that goes.

No matter what flaps I use on landings, I always put them fully down to allow easier step on/off the wing (I don’t have a step).

I’m voting for it’s not from the Mooney.

Exhaust flanges are held on with nuts, not bolts.

This is a rather large sheared off bolt, thorough inspection of engine and nose gear is in order before flying plane

Derlin Rod. I think it is 7/8. Centering on a lathe is hard without turning the piece after centering. especially at the end of a semi flexible rod. It's also hard to center if you recess the rod into a chuck to eliminate sway. So what I did was cut the rod to width or a little over on a table saw. Then created a square jig to hold the round rod. Then could center precisely on the milling machine and drill the hole using the horizontal table. There was some square up/final dimensioning for the width that could be accomplished with a flat file. I still have a bag of them cut somewhere. https://www.amazon.com/BuyPlastic-Delrin-Acetal-Copolymer-Diameter/dp/B092Y8F2ZK/ref=sr_1_2?crid=39XWK6QWO0NJ4&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.GLKXYP5rUVhCOeaCKW55RBbtcn7FYezCSDlGG2mC0SfvU9-kTBu8Tkru_TNpKX4QJl2GAFe8qSSBpE-oQpRQwLI3JttJh86SvgDc9Pu7tUUgXuu5aF7DujgqlGbXN76BPIvQ1wq6U80Vg-5ufFBhsE7kCGJm_kBx2SnUfmG4x7BMstxtBey7itspjyJQrySv6gcdY_yKc8lI649dblcwK2HL8f0Gi0ih_GX6L4--JB0.eDWZVQWq3C434BWcpVX4h-gceYWaihsuSjw6fXdPr6Y&dib_tag=se&keywords=delrin%2Brods%2B7%2F8&qid=1757792148&sprefix=delrin%2Brods%2B7%2F8%2Caps%2C166&sr=8-2&th=1

I think you guys give too much credibility to the 1/2 flaps thing. The Mooney flaps are not nearly as effective as the flaps on other planes. The only time I use takeoff flaps is for short or soft field takeoffs. For landing they are either up or down. I only land with them up if someone asks me to, or they are broke.

The tit seems pretty reasonable compared to all my egt readings as well. What do your egts read at this power setting?

At all flap settings, the yoke still works. With full nose up trim, it isn’t hard to put the nose wherever you need it. I like to land as slow as possible. Extra speed on the ground never seems like a good idea.

We already did.. In one had, the 100R is already "blessed" by Lycoming in IO36, they had no objection to FAA STC for 100R in C172S In the other hand, G100UL in IO360 is not approved by Lycoming, they have "strong" objection to FAA STC for G100UL in C172S Maybe the difference between Lycoming approval for 100R vs objection for G100UL has to do with Swift involvement in ASTM? As for 550s, yes Swift seems way behind the curve compared to GAMI, they have challenges with these, they may get something from FAA subject to operational limitation or ignition changes. For "550s", an ASTM drop-in fuel could be very hard to achieve one has to work on formulations within some tight controlled parameters. This may take 18 months or even more: Let's be honest some engines break cylinders and valves every 800h on 100LL, I doubt they will make it past TBO on 100R...

"I usually use TO flaps for landing. It puts the airplane in a better landing attitude IMO keeping the nose wheel a little higher off the ground." I think this is great point. I don't understand why so many highlight wanting full flaps to keep the nose down more.

No idea how standards were developed for 5G but I seriously doubt that the standards were set using the "lowest common denominator", the lowest requirement. If big bore Lycoming and Continentals and other high-performance engines are the critical path, then the standards should be set to meet them. It shouldn't be "let's get together and set standards for a fuel that we call "100" but really only satisfies the "94 fleet". i.e. "marketing hype". Let's all hope that it works for the more demanding high performance engine segment. But they should have been testing this in 520's. 550's, 540's, 580's Turbo and NA from the get-go. Not "Announce 100R ASTM - Great Success"....oh but we forgot to test it in engines that actually need 100. - and "Stand by for about 2 years while we begin testing"

I've been the same way. A few times in high-crosswind approaches when I did use half-flaps, I wound up putting the rest in on short final. I think the idea for a faster landing speed with a crosswind is to minimize the correction angle or sideload on touchdown, but I suspect those differences are small for small airplanes. Reducing energy at touchdown feels more beneficial to me, but my experience level is low compared to some others.

Standards development happens all the time for all sorts of things. Do you know what companies participated in the development of 5G? WiFi? Any of the multitudes of SAE standards? Announcing standards participation is not done very often, since it's usually not very beneficial to the company to do so. I suspect we'll hear some sort of support or limitations statements from various manufacturers once a particular fuel enters the distribution system and becomes available to consumers. Relevant manufacturers made statements when G100UL came out, but mostly saying that they didn't support use of it. For a fuel that they participated in acceptance via a standard, a statement may look very different, but I wouldn't expect to see one until the fuel became available or was about to.

Last year I had a GFC 500 installed in my plane which already had the Aspen 2500. I had a GI275 installed to control it. The Aspen system and the autopilot systems are completely independent. That means flight director shows on the 275 and not the Aspen. Altimeter must be set in both.

While the main objective is to seal the baffles, I’m always amazed at how many mechanics will just gob the RTV on like that. Only takes a few minutes to run a couple pieces of masking tape before you apply the sealant. Hit it with an acid brush to make it lay down a nice texture and then remove the tape. Professional looking sealant every time. That looks awful, I don’t blame you for wanting to redo it.

The point is - be realistic. And they should be too. They are not going to institute "new manufacturing". More investment? Ridiculous. They should focus on cutting cost and getting it in line with inflow. They can supply parts using much less infrastructure. And this dream of taking planes in trade and refurbishing is a whole different business model. They are going to drown in negative cash flow. This is why companies restructure, some potentially successfully, in bankruptcy.